Mark invokers tests as non-tentative

[keithamus]

See related spec PR whatwg/html#9841

[nt1m]

I would mark this PR as draft until the spec PR lands.

[annevk]

No need to mark as draft. It just needs a label.

[annevk]

It looks like this needs rebasing.

[annevk]

It's a bit weird to have this in an invokers directory which isn't really a thing anymore in the specification. Perhaps move it all in the button element directory?

[annevk]

Thanks! These look good and we can land these along with the PR, but I'm assuming that these do not cover the type getter of the button element as we discussed that today. And they might also not cover the command getter in as much detail as is needed? E.g., does it handle OPEN becoming open, blah becoming null, --BLAH staying --BLAH?

[annevk]

I don't understand what the state of this is. I don't see the referenceTarget folder being changed here and #50542 is an empty PR that does not address my comment.

[keithamus]

@annevk the referencetarget folder has been changed here: https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/pull/42664/files#diff-5a639ea163375c81575b92d7e9c07e7875d8f21beaac1daf1b1e743dd93d5cc8. @lukewarlow's comments are out of date with the current state of this branch. To address your comments:

Thanks! These look good and we can land these along with the PR, but I'm assuming that these do not cover the type getter of the button element as we discussed that today.

This PR renames button-type-behavior and button-type-reflection which cover the type getter of the button element. These are marked non-tentative in this PR so I'd consider this resolved.

And they might also not cover the command getter in as much detail as is needed? E.g., does it handle OPEN becoming open, blah becoming null, --BLAH staying --BLAH?

Yes these are all covered in command-reflection which has been renamed non-tentative in this PR. Specifically those kinds of tests are here:

wpt/html/semantics/the-button-element/command-and-commandfor/command-reflection.html

Lines 24 to 35 in 97c05b7

	['sHoW-MoDaL', 'show-modal'],
	['tOgGlE-pOpOvEr', 'toggle-popover'],
	['hIdE-pOpOvEr', 'hide-popover'],
	['sHoW-pOpOvEr', 'show-popover'],
	['ClOsE', 'close'],
	['--cUsToM', '--cUsToM'
	]].forEach(([cased, command]) => {
	test(function (t) {
	invokerbutton.command = cased
	assert_equals(invokerbutton.command, command, `invoker should reflect odd cased ${cased} properly - as ${command}`);
	}, `invoker should reflect odd cased ${cased} properly - as ${command}`);
	});

which shows 'sHoW-MoDaL' will reflect as 'show-modal' while '--cUsToM' will reflect as '--cUsToM'. I'd consider this resolved as well.

[lukewarlow]

#50542 is an empty PR that does not address my comment.

Apologies, the tests were uploaded separately (via chrome sync iirc) so that PR isn't needed anymore.

[annevk]

Thanks!

It's extremely hard to figure those kind of things out from a force push so next time consider leaving a comment detailing the state of the PR.